Anything common for different parts of ancient Africa

Fantasus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2012
2,381
Northern part of European lowland
Was there anything that made ancient Africa in some sense one historical region?
Or was it not rather separated because of the distances and difficulties of communication and transport to several relatively isolated regions without that much in common. Though similarities in landscape, vegetation , animal life and life conditions perhaps may have created similarities.
 

jehosafats

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
2,088
...
Well the Sahara, when it was fertile, made Africa 'one historical region' in many respects. Practices such as divine kingship, ancestor veneration, totemism, circumcision ceremonies, color symbolism, etc, go back to the prehistoric communities dotted throughout the Sahara. Iron was also common across the continent. After the period of desiccation there were only limited contacts across the Sahara. Nomadic-pastoralists of course lived in the desert and would even create a water-rich metropolis there (Garma), but generally speaking the harsh conditions of the desert made frequent contact very difficult. There's evidence some of the pharaohs had sponsored treks southwest to Chad. Lake Chad was once a common meeting point for a wide variety of Saharans prior to desiccation.
 
Nov 2008
256
California
Was there anything that made ancient Africa in some sense one historical region?
Or was it not rather separated because of the distances and difficulties of communication and transport to several relatively isolated regions without that much in common. Though similarities in landscape, vegetation , animal life and life conditions perhaps may have created similarities.
Perhaps you are thinking that Africa or sub-Sahara Africa might have produced its own civilization like India, China and Europe as well parts of South and Central America. The answer is "not yet" but we know Africans set up advanced Egyptian-like kindoms in the Sudan, Islamic civilization in North Africa (Timbukto) and among the Bantus from Zimbabway north to Etheopia. The Zulus had a very powerful kingdom in South Africa as well. Right now, I think that sub-Sahara Africa rather resembles Italy before its duchies were united into a single nation. (please excuse my phonetic spelling!)
 
Feb 2008
207
Here some books to check out.

In 1964, UNESCO launched the elaboration of the General History of Africa with a view to remedy the general ignorance on Africa's history.

General History of Africa | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization






IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY
UNESCO -<b>IRON IN AFRICA: REVISING THE HISTORY </b>




UNESCO General History of Africa, Vol. II, Abridged Edition


Volume II of this acclaimed series is now available in an abridged paperback edition. The result of years of work by scholars from all over the world, The UNESCO General History of Africa reflects how the different peoples of Africa view their civilizations and shows the historical relationships between the various parts of the continent. Historical connections with other continents demonstrate Africa's contribution to the development of human civilization. Each volume is lavishly illustrated and contains a comprehensive bibliography.


G. Mokhtar (Editor)







UNESCO General History of Africa, Vol. II, Abridged Edition : G. Mokhtar, editor - University of California Press
 

Fantasus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2012
2,381
Northern part of European lowland
I see the question about ancient African Civilizations as somewhat different from my first post, since the later was about what may have "united" ancient Africa - wether it is reasonable to see it as one region at all - what I to some degree is sceptical about. From one point of view the purely geographical entity Africa is very easy to define - to see - since it is almost onee big, massive island. That is not the same as to say the peoples of its different parts had much if anything to do with each other. On the other hand they wwere with few excepteions in Northern and eastern regions much more isolated from non-africans. With the exception of voyages on rivers and lakes in the continents interior - in itself evidently of importance, the conditions seems not favourable for navigation and seafaring.
 
Nov 2008
256
California
I see the question about ancient African Civilizations as somewhat different from my first post, since the later was about what may have "united" ancient Africa - wether it is reasonable to see it as one region at all - what I to some degree is sceptical about. From one point of view the purely geographical entity Africa is very easy to define - to see - since it is almost onee big, massive island. That is not the same as to say the peoples of its different parts had much if anything to do with each other. On the other hand they wwere with few exceptions in Northern and eastern regions much more isolated from non-africans. With the exception of voyages on rivers and lakes in the continents interior - in itself evidently of importance, the conditions seems not favourable for navigation and seafaring.
Isn't it clearly one continent with numberous different regions? Not only is all of it very diverse but there are also more "races" there than exist in the whole rest of the world.
 

Fantasus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2012
2,381
Northern part of European lowland
Relative isolation

Isn't it clearly one continent with numberous different regions? Not only is all of it very diverse but there are also more "races" there than exist in the whole rest of the world.
I Agree.
There is one thing that characterize the whole of Africa - or not far from - and that it is so massive. A vast interior, relatively little coastland - and then of course it has most lands near the Equator. Then also most of its coasts are relatively far from other shores, except for the North - North east - therefore relatively isolated before oceanic voyages.
 
Feb 2008
207
I was going to put this in the ancient history thread,but to many bias folks hang there,so i put this in this thread in the african section since i posted here before.

I did not want to open a new thread,and at least my thoughts and some info could be read about the topic that was brought up recently.


QUOTE-
This is the case with ancient Egypt too, where for vast majority of
3000 BCE to 800 BCE, Egypt was one of the top three civilized regions of the planet- with mesopotamia and india being the other ones.


REPLY-
QUOTE-
You epically failed to mention Anatolia and the land of the Hatti...In the bronze age if you
remember there were specific "great Empires" known.



http://www.historum.com/history/39178-does-greek-civilization-owe-its-roots-egypt-37.html





Don't mean to change the subject,so after this everyone go back to topic.

I wanted to reply this before that other thread was closed.

It was said that one of the top civilized regions majority of the time period,3000 B.C. to 800 B.C. were Egypt,and mesopotamia and India,and that's true but someone mention the land of Hattians.
I disagree with that since thier civilization did not last that long and they were not that powerful,so they would not even be in the top 5.

I would add the region to south of egypt,nubia on the top of list like pre-kerma/kerma empire etc...

In fact the kerma empire was the most powerful empire in the world in the 1700-1500 B.C. and they invaded deep into egypt,so their empire included parts of egypt.

The below info of course deals with kerma,not the city called pre-kerma.

quote

Kerma (now known as Dukki Gel, a Nubian term which can be roughly translated as "red mound") was the capital city of the Kingdom of Kerma, which was located in present day Egypt and Sudan. The Kerma site has been confirmed by archaeology to be at least 9,500 years old. Around 3000 BC, a cultural tradition began around Kerma. Kerma was a large urban center that was built around a large mud brick temple, known as the Western Deffufa.[ Some unique aspects of this culture were beautiful pottery, the importance of cattle, a system of defense, and the King's audience chamber, which bears no resemblance to any Egyptian building (it was rebuilt 10 times).[4] 'Kerma' is also used to describe the early Sudanese kingdom, of which Kerma was capital. This was one of the earliest African civilizations, commanding an empire that circa 1600 BCE rivalled Egypt (stretching from the First to Fourth Cataracts). Kerma was about 435 miles (700 km) away from Aswan.


Early settlement
Human populations settled in the Kerma Basin at a very early date, as witnessed by several Mesolithic and Neolithic sites. The earliest traces of a human presence in the region date back some tens of thousands of years. From 7500 BC onward the remains become more significant: semi-buried dwellings, various objects and tools, and graves.[verification needed] What’s clear is that Kerma’s civilisation emerged out of an ancient pastoral culture that had flourished in that part of Sudan since at least 7000 B.C. when the first settlements were established. Nearby Kerma archaeologists have discovered one of the two oldest cemeteries ever found in Africa – dating back to 7500 B.C. – and the oldest evidence of cattle domestication ever found in Sudan or, indeed, in the Egyptian Nile Valley. Around 3000 BC a town grew up not far from the Neolithic dwellings place.






QUOTE-
Building materials
In Old Kerma (2450-2050 BCE), religious buildings and special workshops for preparing offerings were built using trunks of acacia trees and roofed with palm fibers. These plant-based materials, once encased in hardened clay, could be painted in lively colors. The round huts were usually made of wood and clay. This method of construction, inspired by traditions dating back to prehistory, is still being used today.


Around 2200-2000 BCE, the builders began using unfired mud-bricks. Later, the use of fired bricks constituted a significant change, because such material remained almost unknown elsewhere along the Nile Valley until the Late Period.









To bad that thread was closed,it was interesting,oh well that's all i had to say.
Back to topic.
 
Last edited: